Talk:Terry Richardson/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A bio on his website can be viewed here. Ground 21:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would say from examination of his website that this person is not that notable. AfD, Move for Speedy deletion. 70.5.157.105 05:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Although I am not much of a fan of his work, I would say that he is a significant contemporary photographer. See external references here, here and here (be warned that the last link includes a photo of his featuring nudity). I would describe him as being somewhat in the vein of Larry Clark, with a tendency towards fashion photography. Cuffeparade 19:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

a) he's definitely notable unsigned person. b) I'm unsure of whether to mention his "porn" site http://www.richardsonmag.com/. I think it could be useful for placing his work in context but i'm pretty sure wikipedia has a no +18 website policy. Any editors have any thoughts on this? 3tmx 23:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If it is an official website of Richardsons, I think it should be included, although if there is significant nudity or 'adult content', we might want to include a warning with the link. Cuffeparade 05:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added the link with warning. I have consulted WP:EL and cannot see any issues. 3tmx 16:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Richardson Magazine is NOT ASSOCIATED IN ANY WAY with Terry Richardson. (The magazine is run by Andrew Richardson, not related). Terry Richardson once did a photo essay in Richardson Magazine. There should NOT be a link to this magazine, and it shouldn't be called "(Terry) Richardson's magazine". Kiwwik 02:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

reverted edit by Abouricheh as A) "talented and gifted" is subjective, not encyclopedic b) it sounds like an advert for boom boom productions c) Richardson has directed a number of videos for more notable bands that are not listed here

what?

"However in the Senior year of his high school career he was voted Most Likely to Star in a Motion Picture for a Non-Profit Corporation Such As Habitat for Humanity or Big Brother Big Sister."He played bass guitar in the punk rock band The Invisible Government for 5 years, was a great songwriter and wanted to be a rock star. Richardson began photography when the band broke up and his mother introduced him to Tony Kent the very loving and caring photographer who took him on as an assistant."

i will tag this for citation haha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.220.141 (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Add external link

I would like to submit [http://www.trunkarchive.com/terry+richardson Trunk Archive] as an external link. Trunk Archive is the image licensing agency that represents his photography archives. I believe it adds value to add Trunk Archive-who handles his photos in syndication- and also serves as a more comprehensive gallery to his body of work.

There is a log-in for users that set up an account, but also a general view to the public that requires no log-in at all. Thank you. 74.8.187.218 (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not on Trunk Archive anymore?

I just went to Trunk Archive and didn't see Terry Richardson on there. --74.69.177.128 (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

mass deletion

@Letitbe070 if you disagree with the page copy, references and external links - please discuss it here rather than just deleting. Spanglej (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Appleton incident

(Contentious statement about a living person not sourced anywhere removed in accordance to WP:BLP--Oakshade (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC))... should this "controversy" now be removed? Is it in violation of BLP? CaffeinAddict (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As long as the allegation and subsequent confirmation of the fake account has been reported by secondary reliable sources, it's not a WP WP:BLP violation. Do you have the reliable source that confirms that Appleton created the fake account? Without that, then that would be a true WP:BLP violation. BLP applies to talk pages too. --Oakshade (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's sourced in the article already. It was an official announcement by Facebook. CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Currently, all that's sourced in regards to what FB "confirms" is the Fashionista article which only says "A representative from Facebook acknowledged that in this case, an account had been reported for violating the site's terms of service and subsequently removed, but couldn't comment any further on the matter." Where is the source that states FB confirmed it was Appleton that created the fake account? --Oakshade (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

As no source has been provided supporting the opening sentence of this section - the claim the FB reps "confirms" that "Appleton created a fake account" - I have removed the statement from the lede of this section as a statement of fact in accordance with WP:BLP. --Oakshade (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I see your (albeit unnecessarily particular) issue now - I said Appleton created the fake account. That can't be proven. But a Facebook rep did confirm the account which sent the message was not real. That is sourced. The question remains - if Richardson never sent said message, should it even be in the article? CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll be neutral on whether it should be mentioned in the article, but it wouldn't be a BLP violation if it is as long as everything, including that the message was not Richardson's, is properly verified.--Oakshade (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reworded the situation for clarity. The source also points to Appleton's Instagram where she publicly acknowledged she has no idea if the message was real or fake now that facebook has commented on the situation. I'd love to hear some other voices to see if the incident includes mention in the article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Due to the fact it was a confirmed hoax and it would be WP:UNDUE to include the sentences to include it, I will now removed it. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreeing with CaffeinAddict on Appleton. It states that the photo was alleged from the beginning and confirmed as a hoax. As it reads, it's lengthy and borderline WP:UNDUE imo. Jppcap (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: I had removed the section but the edit was reverted stating there was not enough consensus on the talk page here. Will wait for more voices. I think it should be removed entirely. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

That whole section is one big exercise in WP:WEASEL. It just refers vaguely to some "inappropriate behavior" without ever actually stating what it was. This has received widespread coverage and the whole Appleton thing is really just a red herring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, once again I removed the incident. CaffeinAddict (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Abuse allegations

I added a section on the recent allegations as featured in a Guardian article. As this is fully sourced by a reputable British newspaper I expect this section to stand. Guardian article 19 March 2010 by Caroline Davies [1] Spanglej (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

All such content removed for the moment, because it was a huge violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. One or two lines tops can be allowed back. And please read WP:Biographies of living persons. DinDraithou (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Although the discussion remains far from neutral, what you are contributing now is better. You have given me new sources and I see that he has his defenders, who will have to be mentioned. DinDraithou (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. The idea is not to demonise him but openly discuss what is on public record. I don't think any of this contravenes WP:BLP as he has openly discussed all of this in interviews with The Guardian and other newspapers cited here. He freely discusses his heroin use, his family background and having sex with models in front of the camera. Critique sections are allowed. 'Neutral' doesn't mean 'non-critical', as I understand it, but non-argumentative. The sex angle is his shtick, why he has became famous. It needs exposition. Best wishes Span (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You and other editors have been insisting on a completely negative POV for Wikipedia, and are aware Richardson has defenders but have not mentioned them. This is unacceptable, and now that I and others know what has been going on, you have a good chance of getting in real trouble if you keep it up. Consider yourself warned. Adding the new sources, while helpful to me and soon Richardson, was probably not a good idea for you personally. DinDraithou (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no conspiracy, I assure you. My point is that his interviews and photographs are of public record. I don't think this is about 'defenders' or 'attackers' but making for a strong article. Please remember to assume good faith. Best wishes Span (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Disputed content in a BLP is best kept out of the article whilst under discussion and a caser is made for its inclusion - the content as is being replaced is imo a bit attacking in nature. Off2riorob (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

......Negative POV? He is famous now because of his earlier work of sexually explicit material. There is the fact that Terry Richardson removed images from ......his website immediately after the women came forward and spoke out about his abuse. How is that not relevant to this website and his history? To not ......reveal this information is painting a positive only POV of someone who is now famous enough to not have to do what he did in the past to get work. He .......will only be seen as a fashion photographer. Very misleading. Nickcorey1280@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.235.250 (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "inappropriate sexual behavior" might be sufficient after the behavior was described earlier, but not as the sole descriptor of what he is accused of. It is relevant and still NPOV to describe what he's accused of. "Inappropriate sexual behavior" includes masturbating on a public street, having sexual relations with a minor, grabbing the breasts of woman on a bus, and a million other things. He has been accused of using his role as the photographer to get women to do things they don't want to do, from sexual poses to engaging in sexual relations with him. These descriptions are no more accusatory to him than saying he has engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior. It's relevant that the inappropriate behavior occurred on the set, and that it involved sexual activity between the photographer and the subject. Dr.queso = talk 21:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Allegations continue and are clearly legitimate as accusations. If they are true or not is not a matter for wikipedia. The allegations exist, they haven't been refuted, and they are the most significant part of what he is known for by the general public at this point. This article is a total white-washing. Disgusting. It is the main thing he is known for now, and according to wikipedia, it doesn't even exist. How encyclopedic! The references are all major mainstream media reports, too, but the original research of his defenders is more important to wikipedia. 76.105.216.34 (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This page needs more info

A few of us should clean this page up. It's severly biased, and full of errors. CP30777 (talk)CP30777 —Preceding undated comment added 05:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

I've had a go at reducing the 'undue' criticism from web gossip sites. Martinlc (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleting his own personal quotes from the Guardian UK seems like this page is protecting him, "I don't think I'm a sex addict, but I do have issues," pondering his issues with, "maybe it's the psychological thing that I was a shy kid, and now I'm this powerful guy with his boner, dominating all these girls". How is quoting him and showing references biased? And to not give voice to women who have never met and stood up to say they were abused by him seems like censorship. nick corey Nickcorey1280@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.235.250 (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of WP is to write an encyclopedia. To that end, certain policies exist - notably WP:RS, WP:NPOV and, for biographies of living persons and related articles, WP:BLP. I suggest you acquaint yourself with them, and specifically the one on BLP. Collect (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

So, white-washing the history of people you like is somehow a neutral point of view? Pretending controversies don't exist is not in any way "neutral." 76.105.216.34 (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Read the essay WP:PIECE Collect (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we have to go through this again?

Where is the team that saved this article? Do I have to make a report at the BLP noticeboard again?

Also, the versions have gotten screwed up and it looks like I mistakenly restored a bad line when I thought I was getting rid of the entire mess. Nora lives (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to say your actions are ethically suspect since you're fighting so hard to have the entire Sexual abuse allegations section removed -- which is now an official part of Richardson's biography whether you like it or not. On the mechanical level of WP policies you may succeed, but that's not what matters at all. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 15:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree it was ethically suspect, and they did indeed remove it all. It isn't like there is an edit war between citations for or against the allegations; instead they just white-wash the whole thing, delete the sections as if the controversy didn't even exist. Just rewriting history because they can't reasonably oppose quoting him where the quote is published in The Guardian. 76.105.216.34 (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality Header

There has been no discussion on this matter and as it stands there is still a neutrality dispute header. Can we please have some more voices on this issue?? CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Remove it. No one's actively disputing said neutrality in the banner, and checking the page history, it was added, no one contested it, but nothing has been done to address it. Neutrality is a content dispute fixed by editing. I gave the article a read and it reads pretty neutral, even the sexual assault allegation. Tutelary (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality is still strongly disputed, and in fact any casual examination would reveal that numerous celebrities have been quoted in mainstream media making allegations of sexual misconduct. That the allegations exist is entirely neutral. It is just a fact of the universe; this person exists, this person is a photographer, various people have accused this photographer of specific things. I would expect even his strongest supporters to be able to agree that the allegation exist. Pretending they don't exist is clearly and indisputably a historical white-washing. It isn't just non-neutral; it is clearly abusive of wikipedia. Look at the history of what has been deleted; even actual Terry Richardson quotes published by The Guardian regarding the controversies have been deleted. He said what he said, and because it makes him look bad, his wikipedia supporters delete the well-cited information. Disgusting and unethical. And then they even delete the flags that show the neutrality is in dispute! You can take out a flag, but you can't stop the neutrality from actually being in dispute. The neutrality of this article is KNOWN to be in dispute. 76.105.216.34 (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Tentatively, it is already covered under the 'Personal life' section. Now that I look at it, attempting to hide the content further into the article so that somebody would have to literally go through to find those bits of information is kind of iffy. Though you adding a 'controversy' header when it's already covered is a bit iffy with me, because we're effectively covering the information twice. I would be fine with splitting 'Personal life' and the controversy stuff into two sections. One for covering the allegations and another for just his personal life. The personal life section dealing with the allegations does read pretty neutral, and that's what I was talking about. Neutrality is a dispute that can be remedied through editing. And in response to your accusation, just because someone edits the content doesn't mean they're endorsing it. I saw some talk of the NPOV tag, saw no real active discussion on it, checked edit history, no one really elaborated on it, and article read pretty neutral, so I endorsed removing it. Tutelary (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I would be against it because the allegations are balanced pretty evenly between people who have defended him and people who have accused him of sexual misconduct that an entire section would be WP:Undue. If you look at someone like Bill Cosby or Rob Ford for instance, their controversy sections are so large because although a lot of things are still allegations - the overwhelming nature of the allegations and (supposed) evidence are enough to garner an entire new section. For now, unless there is hard evidence except for a couple of rumours which have been refuted, the neutrality of the article will remain intact if emphasis is place on the allegations. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality relating to allegations

There has been an occasional push to try to make this article focus on the allegations about Richardson. We have tried to keep them neutral and well sourced (mildly difficult considering most of the allegations come from sites such as Jezebel_(website)) with points from both sides. Please talk here before making major changes such as the recent edit to have half of the lead about the allegations. CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A large proportion of the coverage from the sources and media deal with this issue, so it is a simple matter of WP:DUE to include a proportional amount of it. Moreover subheading should reflect the content of the sections they are about. That's simple uncontroversial wikipedia editing. Avaya1 (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, the allegations in question aren't even about anything legally wrong - the allegations are about things that are considered in poor taste, rather than anything non-consensual. Secondly, the allegations are simply minimal. No major publications have reliably pushed on the issue, nor do they warrant more than their statement and their counter-statement. They are currently and simply a blip on Richardson's career. If and/or when they are reported to be true, verifiable or have more reliable sources, they can be expanded to their own section. WHERE are the major news outlets besides gossip rags reporting on these allegations?? Do a quick Google News search on Richardson. No more edits on this until a consensus from other users. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Media such as the Guardian is highly mainstream actually. I also can't see why you are trying to hide content by removing subheadings. The point about subheadings is to allow the reader to navigate the content contained in the article. The subheadings need to be restored.Avaya1 (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of issues here, so for clarity they should be taken one by one. First is whether sources are reliable enough for contentious BLP. Summary style articles from the likes of the Guardian and New York Observer are. An OpEd by someone making accusations against him, or mostly consisting of block quotes of an accuser, is primary, so not adequate. The uses of Jezebel and ixdaily look bad to me and should probably be raised at the BLP noticeboard. Next, is it due for inclusion? I'd say yes, given the amount of coverage. Then, is it covered neutrally? I'd say so, given the ample coverage of Richardson's and his supporters' responses. The citations for supporters should be screened for primariness, though. Neutrality flows into the issue of section headings. It certainly should not be hidden in Personal Life, but should perhaps be a subheading of the style section. Unlike Cosby for instance, it seems to me the accusations in this case are inseparable from Richardson's work. Rhoark (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I would definitely go so far as to say anything from Jezebel is not reliable. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, the "indecent exposure" source looks pretty unreliable, the rest are major news sources. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, IMO, the allegations shouldn't even be in the article. They boil down to people suggesting they're 'uncomfortable' with the sexual nature of the work. Not that he did anything wrong or non-consensual. He has not been accused of crime, of rape or of sexual assault. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That's why I think it should be covered as an extension of the section on his style. It's simply what he does, and is known for doing. People perceive it in different ways - including as sexual assault. Getting consensus not to talk about that at all is not a realistic expectation. Rhoark (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Terry Richardson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)